“CONTEMPT OF COURT.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1553, 20 May 1916, Page 4

“CONTEMPT OF COURT.”

JUDGE AND NEWSPAPER

MELBOURNE ARGUS ARTICLES

On taking his seat on the bench in the Federal Arbitration Court at Darlinghurst this afternoon (says the Sydney Sun of the 4th inst.), Mr Justice Higgins made reference to four articles which he said had been published in the Melbourne Argus of May Ist and 2nd concerning a Broken Hill case which was then pending. His Honor pointed out that the award had not been given, and the newspaper was, therefore, guilty of the offence of contempt of Court.

“But I am loth to take extreme steps,” he. added. “I should not even say anything now hut. for the injurious effect which the articles are likely to have on industrial peace. It is stated in one article that hy the Court’s proposals in this case ‘rebellion against the laws is made profitable,’ and that ‘the lesson thus taught is not likely to be forgotten by other unions impatient of control and determined to obtain precedence'in the bearing of their claims.’ If the writer had wished to instigate strikes, he could hardly have used more appropriate language for his purpose. The men of Broken Hill know, of course, how unfounded the statement of the article is. But there is danger’ as to the effect on other unions. The men who broke their contracts at Broken Hill know that I refused to give precedence to their case, refused to hear them at all while they were breaking their contracts ; but that I gave precedence to their case, as well as to the case of law-abiding unions, on the application of the national Government, which needed the metals for the munitions of war ; also at the request of the mining companies, who want at once to extract lead at its present very high price of £32 to £33 per ton ; at the request of the other unions who had kept the men at the Port Pirie smelters, who had refused to strike. Having once undertaken the cast!, it became my obvious duty to do justice to all claims, whatever the conduct of the men had been previously, and no fault has been pointed out by the newspaper in the substance of the third article, there is a partisan but honest statement, of (he facts of the case, taken from the lips of one or more of the company managers. “Moreover, the writer comments on ‘the solicitude of the pi’esident to obtain promises from both sides that his award when given would be observed,’ and he declares that a serious reflection is cast upon (he ‘majesty of the law itself when the Judge condescends to,assume that it may be disregarded, and to ask the parlies in advance if they will abide by it.’ The statement is quite wrong. What I asked for, and got, before granting precedence to the cases was an undertaking from both sides that they would respectively give and take work on the lines of the award, whether it mot their views or not. This Court does not compel employers to carry on a business if they think it will not pay them ; and it does not compel employees to take work if (hey think the terms offered are not good enough. By demanding the undertaking as a condition of granting precedence to the (‘uses the Court succeeded in gaining an assurance that, whatever the award, the work of the mines would go on, and the nation would get the -metal which it so urgently needs for the purposes of the war.”

His Honour went on to point out that in the fourth article the writer was in error in his references to certain statements which had been made by the Commonwealth Statistician upon the subject of the cost of living. His Honour had said that most of the industrial unrest in the Commonwealth was attributable to the remarkable, rise in the cost of living in recent years, and he added ; “It is surely a danger signal when the Commonwealth Statistician finds that the cost of provisions and rent for the Commonwealth as a whole is more than 30 per cent, greater in July, 1015, than in July, 1014. The writer,” proceeded his Honour, “denies that the Statistician made such a statement, and says that the 30 per cent, increase was spread over live years. But (he writer is wrong again.” “As I said before,” concluded his Honour, “I welcome honest criticism in the difficult and responsible work which I have to do, and I cannot. expect to. please all parties where so many and so great interests are involved. But those who want to criticise will do no good if they do not take the trouble to ascertain the. tacts before they write their censures. Certainly, this Court is not likely to alter its ways because of comments made with slovenly inaccuracy and with a reckless' disregard of the baneful effect upon industrial peace and upon the supreme interests of the community.’.’